Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
iPhone ad rapped as 'misleading'
- Thread starter redgaz26
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I don't feel the lack of Flash is a deal-breaker for me, I've know all along that Flash was not possible at this time...
Adobe needs to get their **** together. Whe my MacPro hangs up for several seconds trying to watch a flash video, there may just be a problem with your software Adobe.
All Apple has to do is add Flash support to the iPhone, then they can put the ads back up and everyone wins.
I voted this positive. I used to live in the UK and the British Advertising Standards are some of the toughest in the world. The product you are selling basically has to perform to what you are stating. They try to eliminate some of the marketing BS that runs rampant in many companies.
They also have the sale of consumer goods act that basically describes that again, a good has to perform to the purpose that was describe (I don't know the exact legal jargon as I have been out of the UK a long time now) but essentially if you discover that the product you bought does not work as described (for example unable to access all the internet because of missing functionality) then you as a consumer has right for address (refund, compensation of some kind - again I can't remember the specifics).
While this may not exactly fit within Apple's marketing departments ideal world of how to spin products I think it is good to slap Apple in the face every now and then. I like OSX and Apple products, but I do not like the arrogance the company commonly shows and its marketing BS.
They also have the sale of consumer goods act that basically describes that again, a good has to perform to the purpose that was describe (I don't know the exact legal jargon as I have been out of the UK a long time now) but essentially if you discover that the product you bought does not work as described (for example unable to access all the internet because of missing functionality) then you as a consumer has right for address (refund, compensation of some kind - again I can't remember the specifics).
While this may not exactly fit within Apple's marketing departments ideal world of how to spin products I think it is good to slap Apple in the face every now and then. I like OSX and Apple products, but I do not like the arrogance the company commonly shows and its marketing BS.
Well, it's still the idiot consumer's fault. If your to Fu(king lazy to go online to see what restrictions a $200 phone that has a $2000 contract you obviously are totally retarded, or you have enough money to not have to worry about that kind of thing.
I like talking thank you very much, and believe me I have much more intelligence then the idiot who pops $2200+ on a phone without checking to see what its limitations are. And if you can't do a google search, you have no need for an iPhone because it will overload your simple brain.
I repeat the average consumer is an idiot, but not a retard.
Don
Can you imagine a 'Truth in advertising' law in USA? We'd have about four ads left!
Fixed that sig for you. Wouldn't normally notice/bother about something like that, but since you were going on about idiots....
Truth in Advertising Law? Well great. Everyone loses. Billion-dollar advertising revenues will be destroyed. Every business gets sued and bankrupted, their marketing/advertising executives all jailed. Only the lawyers win. We want the lawyers to pwn the rest of the world, do we?
Don - Absolutely not - now I dont agree with you at all.
If a normal person off the street wanted an iPhone, because it "looked cool", they would go into the apple shop, or O2 or whatever, and look at the advertising there. They might even go online and look at the apple website and see the advertising there. A lot of people dont go onto forums and discuss this type of thing, and dont go to websites such as gizmodo or engadget...
So in this case, the ordinary person would have seen apples advertising, which was "Misleading" as we have already established. This is the very reason that the Advertising Standards Authority exists here in the UK.
Obviously you cant understand that.
Truth in Advertising Law? Well great. Everyone loses. Billion-dollar advertising revenues will be destroyed. Every business gets sued and bankrupted, their marketing/advertising executives all jailed. Only the lawyers win. We want the lawyers to pwn the rest of the world, do we?
So what are you saying? That every advert in the US is misleading? That all businesses are lying in their adverts? In that case - yes, they should all be moderated by some governing body, who is willing to stand up for the public. I dont actually think thats the case?
We seem to manage okay over here... Imagine buying a fruitcake in the supermarket, and then finding out that in fact, it was just spongecake with lemon flavouring!!?!!?
obscure software indeed
Of course apple can discount the use of flash and java and still claim the full internet experience. After all, these are obscure software!</sarcasm>
This is like saying you have a complete online publishing suite of tools, but have no way of creating pdfs. May not be necessary for much of online publishing, but certainly hampers the experience.
Of course apple can discount the use of flash and java and still claim the full internet experience. After all, these are obscure software!</sarcasm>
This is like saying you have a complete online publishing suite of tools, but have no way of creating pdfs. May not be necessary for much of online publishing, but certainly hampers the experience.
Clearly nobody in this thread has actually watched the ad which was pulled, if you had, you would know that it depicts a first generation iPhone which is running a software version that isn't even the latest in the 1.x series - it hasn't shown for ages anyway - it took the ASA so long to rule against it, it is no longer shown anyway - which is why Apple probably doesn't care. The only ads that are shown in the UK are "Everyone" and "Hallway" - and it's been that way since the 3G was released, which was a while ago.
Apple's explanation is exactly what I thought Apple meant in their ad:
"Apple said that the aim of the ad was to highlight how the iPhone can offer access to all internet websites, while many other handsets only offer lower-level access to WAP versions of sites or those selected by service providers."
Perhaps for the less informed members of the public, Apple should change the text in the ad from:
"all the parts of the internet are on the iPhone."
to:
"unlike many other phones, all internet websites are accessible via the iPhone."
Maybe they should also include an asterisk or subtext that states "some third-party plug-ins not supported"
"Apple said that the aim of the ad was to highlight how the iPhone can offer access to all internet websites, while many other handsets only offer lower-level access to WAP versions of sites or those selected by service providers."
Perhaps for the less informed members of the public, Apple should change the text in the ad from:
"all the parts of the internet are on the iPhone."
to:
"unlike many other phones, all internet websites are accessible via the iPhone."
Maybe they should also include an asterisk or subtext that states "some third-party plug-ins not supported"
A lot of people base their purchases off advertising. If the advert is misleading then the consumer has bought the time on a false promise.
To be more specific: How many people research cell phones before buying? Not very many.
If the adverts can be misleading without recourse, then the manufacturer has a free reign to mislead the consumer as much as they like. Doesn't sound too good to me.
In some ways, the consumer is an idiot, but that doesn't suggest companies can advertise falsely.
To be more specific: How many people research cell phones before buying? Not very many.
If the adverts can be misleading without recourse, then the manufacturer has a free reign to mislead the consumer as much as they like. Doesn't sound too good to me.
In some ways, the consumer is an idiot, but that doesn't suggest companies can advertise falsely.
No commentFixed that sig for you. Wouldn't normally notice/bother about something like that, but since you were going on about idiots....
I understand what you're saying. The average consumer in the UK is a complete and total buffoon and has done the impossible... proved that Paris Hilton isn't the stupidest thing alive.
I understand what you are saying, but IMO you have got to pretty damn stupid to not research buying something that is going to cost you nearly $2500. And if you don't research it, it's you fault and no one else's.
Don
This decision wasn't based on any laws or goverment regulation.
ASA is a independent self-regulatory organisation. It was set-up and still fully funded by the british adverstisement industry.
And even that is not true, because WAP versions of sites are usually pushed by the site itself. If there's no such thing provided for, my Wing (for instance, but all the other WM PDA phones too) will simply scale the site to the screen, while (and that's important!) remaining readable without having to drag, nudge, zoom or fap the displayed content around.
Seriously, I agree with that decision, but not for the reasons stated.
Obviously. We are all idiots over here in the UK. How could I possibly have thought otherwise.
Do you want to borrow my spade?
So, just put a disclaimer in the ads
So, if Apple put a little disclaimer, in "fine print" at the bottom of the ad at the end, stating" "Websites dependent on Java and Flash will not support full functionality," would that satisfy the Advert Board in the UK? I'm pretty sure that would stave off any legal action for such claims in the US.
Along the same vein, to prevent further controversy over the "Twice the speed at half the cost" adverts, wouldn't a similar disclaimer along the lines of "your results may vary based on location, 3G network availability and network loads" protect them from false advertising claims.
Those tactics seem to work for Rx med, automobile, vacation, attorneys, home loans, credit cards, and all other sorts of adverts here in the US. On the radio, they even read the disclaimer out loud in rapid-fire-speak.
So, if Apple put a little disclaimer, in "fine print" at the bottom of the ad at the end, stating" "Websites dependent on Java and Flash will not support full functionality," would that satisfy the Advert Board in the UK? I'm pretty sure that would stave off any legal action for such claims in the US.
Along the same vein, to prevent further controversy over the "Twice the speed at half the cost" adverts, wouldn't a similar disclaimer along the lines of "your results may vary based on location, 3G network availability and network loads" protect them from false advertising claims.
Those tactics seem to work for Rx med, automobile, vacation, attorneys, home loans, credit cards, and all other sorts of adverts here in the US. On the radio, they even read the disclaimer out loud in rapid-fire-speak.